P L D 1994 Supreme Court 211 (PLP)
AHMAD ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION,
| Citation | P L D 1994 Supreme Court 211 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar, Fazal Ilahi Khan |
| Parties | AHMAD ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Supreme Court 211 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Supreme Court 211 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar, Fazal Ilahi Khan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Supreme Court 211 (PLP) (AHMAD ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. M. Farooq Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz M. Khan, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
- . Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th November, 1993
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 1‑4‑1993 passed in Appeals Nos.500 and 501(R) of 1990). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider that advertisement for recruitment to' specified posts having been issued on 18‑3‑1990, whether civil servant aspiring for such specified post would be governed by the amended rules of 15‑5‑1990, whereby quota of in‑service employees was reduced.‑‑[Civil service
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal by which his appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner joined the Public Works Department of Northern Areas, as a Sub‑Engineer on 25‑10‑1971. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer (B‑16) on 25‑4‑1984. The private respondents were recruited as Assistant Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis against the promotion quota. The petitioner objected to it and represented that he may be considered for promotion against two of the posts. The petitioner relied on Recruitment Rules framed on 17‑8‑1980 which provided that 50% of the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer were to be filled by promotion and remaining 50% by direct recruitment. According to the petitioner there were 35 posts of Assistant Executive Engineer during the period from the year 1981 and that out of those 35 posts only seven had been given to the promoters whereas the remaining 28 were filled by direct recruits. It was also pointed out that on 12‑8‑1987 nine more Assistant Executive Engineers were directly recruited. Thus, their number is in excess of their quota. It seems that on 15‑5‑1990 a notification was issued amending the policy of recruitment. By this amendment only 20% of the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers were to go to the quota of promotees while the rest was to be filled by direct recruitment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the advertisement for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer which fell vacant during February or March 1990 was issued on 18‑3‑1990. He contended that as the recruitment rules were amended on 15‑5‑1990, it will not 4 apply to the petitioner, who had become entitled to promotion according to the old Rules before the promulgation of the amended rules. We grant leave to consider the question whether the petitioner would be governed by the amended rules of 15‑5‑1990. AA./A‑1089/S Leave granted